A.M. No. 07-3-13-SC; February 27, 2008
IN RE: COMPLIANCE OF IBP CHAPTERS WITH ADM. ORDER NO. 16-2007, LETTER-COMPLIANCE OF ATTY. RAMON EDISON C. BATACAN

FACTS

Atty. Ramon Edison C. Batacan, IBP Governor for Eastern Mindanao, challenged the election of Atty. Rogelio Vinluan (Southern Luzon) as IBP Executive Vice-President (EVP) for the 2007-2009 term. Batacan invoked the “rotation rule” under Section 47 of the IBP By-Laws, which requires the EVP position (and thus the succeeding presidency) to rotate among the nine IBP regions. He argued that since Atty. Pura Angelica Y. Santiago of Southern Luzon was validly elected EVP in June 2005, her region was disqualified from fielding another candidate (Vinluan) until all other regions had a turn. Batacan contended that Santiago’s subsequent voluntary relinquishment of the office before assumption was immaterial, citing the Court’s ruling in Velez v. De Vera that the rotation rule is completed despite an EVP’s non-assumption to the presidency. He claimed his region, Eastern Mindanao, was the rightful next in rotation.
Atty. Vinluan countered that his election was valid. He emphasized that Atty. Santiago never took her oath, never assumed the EVP office, and voluntarily forewent the position just days after her election. Consequently, a different candidate from the Bicol Region was elected and served the full 2005-2007 EVP term. Vinluan argued that Santiago’s ephemeral election did not constitute a “turn” triggering the rotation cycle for Southern Luzon, distinguishing his situation from Velez where the EVP had actually served. He maintained the rotation rule, prefaced by “as much as practicable,” is not inflexible.

ISSUE

Did the election of Atty. Rogelio Vinluan as IBP Executive Vice-President violate the rotation rule under the IBP By-Laws?

RULING

No, the Supreme Court affirmed the validity of Atty. Vinluan’s election. The Court upheld the IBP Board of Governors’ resolution that declared the election proper. The legal logic rests on the interpretation of the rotation rule’s purpose and application. The rule, encapsulated in Section 47, aims to ensure regional representation and prevent contentious politics by having the presidency rotate “as much as practicable.” This qualifying phrase indicates the rule is a guiding principle, not an absolute, rigid command.
The Court found the Board’s determination reasonable. Atty. Santiago’s election in 2005 was a nullity for rotation purposes because she never assumed the office; she effectively declined it before her term began. Therefore, Southern Luzon had not actually occupied the EVP position in the new rotation cycle that commenced thereafter. The cycle effectively started with the EVP from Bicol who served the full 2005-2007 term. Thus, electing Vinluan for 2007-2009 did not breach the rule, as Southern Luzon’s turn was still due. The invocation of Velez v. De Vera was misplaced, as that case involved an EVP who had fully served his term but was later removed from the presidency, a factually distinct scenario from a complete non-assumption.
Furthermore, the Court accorded respect to the IBP Board’s contemporaneous construction of its own By-Laws, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion. The Board’s action, taken in good faith to fill a vacancy and ensure orderly succession, fell within the flexible application of the “as much as practicable” standard. The election was therefore valid.